(16-03-2014 06:09 PM)Chas Wrote: What amazes me is that many of these anti-vaxers minimize the danger of 'childhood' diseases. They simply don't accept that measles, for instance, maims and kills.

That's funny because I watched an anti-vaxx documentary yesterday and someone said that "Vaccines are maiming and killing our children." I think this is part of what makes this debate so confusing. Everything one side says can be parroted the exact same way, just in reverse on the other side.

Except that it is a FACT that small pox, mumps, measles, rubella, whooping cough (pertussis), polio, etc. did maim and kill people in large numbers before vaccines. And, there are numerous studies that show that vaccines are safe for the vast majority of people, and far lower risk than the illnesses they prevent.

It's not at all confusing when you look at basic facts. Some of the viruses we have wiped out used to kill thousands of people. Now they don't.

Are these people against antibiotics too? My mother had an uncle who died from a simple infection when he was 18. Penicillin would have saved him but it was a few years before it was discovered. Today, no one in the US has to die that way (at least not until all these bugs develop immunity to antibiotics) but less than 80 years ago a minor infecting could turn lethal.

So, why doesn't the profits from those drugs discredit them as a cure?

Edit: what meremortal said.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost

(16-03-2014 06:28 PM)nach_in Wrote: Isn't there any legal consequence for people who don't get vaccinated? there should

I disagree. The right to refuse medical treatment is a constitutional right. While, not having your children vaccinated is stupid and irresponsible, it is a right that needs to be protected.

IMO, only if it can be shown that their choice to not vaccinate is not putting others in the general public at risk. If a public health risk can be created by their choice, then they should be forced to vaccinate or to live where they cannot put the general public at risk because of their ignorance. I don't care if they want to put their own kids at risk, but they don't have the right to expose others.

(16-03-2014 06:28 PM)nach_in Wrote: Isn't there any legal consequence for people who don't get vaccinated? there should

I disagree. The right to refuse medical treatment is a constitutional right. While, not having your children vaccinated is stupid and irresponsible, it is a right that needs to be protected.

Every right has its limitations, and endangering public health is good enough reason to limit a right.
Making it a crime would be too much, but a fine or the loss of some privilege could be enough.
The law doesn't protect stupidity

(16-03-2014 06:56 PM)Punk Pumpkin Wrote: That's funny because I watched an anti-vaxx documentary yesterday and someone said that "Vaccines are maiming and killing our children." I think this is part of what makes this debate so confusing. Everything one side says can be parroted the exact same way, just in reverse on the other side.

Except that it is a FACT that small pox, mumps, measles, rubella, whooping cough (pertussis), polio, etc. did maim and kill people in large numbers before vaccines. And, there are numerous studies that show that vaccines are safe for the vast majority of people, and far lower risk than the illnesses they prevent.

This documentary was saying that polio was already like 90% eradicated before the vaccine came out, and that that was due to better hygiene. It sounds pretty bogus, but at the same time they are extremely good at saying things in a way that is believable. I have noticed that when I listen to the pro-vaxx science I can understand and grasp it. However, when I listen to the anti-vaxx science I find myself confused and not able to follow what they are saying. It makes me feel stupid...like I don't know enough science to understand it...but then again, if what they are saying is false, then that could be why it's hard to follow.

(16-03-2014 07:05 PM)BnW Wrote: It's not at all confusing when you look at basic facts. Some of the viruses we have wiped out used to kill thousands of people. Now they don't.

Are these people against antibiotics too? My mother had an uncle who died from a simple infection when he was 18. Penicillin would have saved him but it was a few years before it was discovered. Today, no one in the US has to die that way (at least not until all these bugs develop immunity to antibiotics) but less than 80 years ago a minor infecting could turn lethal.

So, why doesn't the profits from those drugs discredit them as a cure?

Edit: what meremortal said.

Actually you are correct. They do not believe in antibiotics either usually. Or...they at least believe they are overly used when they should not be.

Better hygiene and sanitation helped reduce the spread of some diseases but it in no way eradicated them. There was a major polio outbreak in the US as recently as the 1950s, so just before the vaccine.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost

(16-03-2014 07:05 PM)BnW Wrote: It's not at all confusing when you look at basic facts. Some of the viruses we have wiped out used to kill thousands of people. Now they don't.

Are these people against antibiotics too? My mother had an uncle who died from a simple infection when he was 18. Penicillin would have saved him but it was a few years before it was discovered. Today, no one in the US has to die that way (at least not until all these bugs develop immunity to antibiotics) but less than 80 years ago a minor infecting could turn lethal.

So, why doesn't the profits from those drugs discredit them as a cure?

Edit: what meremortal said.

Actually you are correct. They do not believe in antibiotics either usually. Or...they at least believe they are overly used when they should not be.

That antibiotics are over used is not in serious debate. Not only are they overused, but people don't use their entire prescription, sometimes leaving some lingering bacteria that can develop immunities to antibiotics. But, that is a different issue than not believing in them.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost

(16-03-2014 06:28 PM)nach_in Wrote: Isn't there any legal consequence for people who don't get vaccinated? there should

I disagree. The right to refuse medical treatment is a constitutional right. While, not having your children vaccinated is stupid and irresponsible, it is a right that needs to be protected.

I agree. And as a solution to the rights of individuals to not vaccinate themselves, I would propose rounding them up in camps. This way, we can "concentrate" the risk to localities where we can better observe the spread of treatable and preventable diseases. The deaths of those people in these "concentration camps" will help science advance our understanding of disease.

(16-03-2014 06:53 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote: I disagree. The right to refuse medical treatment is a constitutional right. While, not having your children vaccinated is stupid and irresponsible, it is a right that needs to be protected.

I agree. And as a solution to the rights of individuals to not vaccinate themselves, I would propose rounding them up in camps. This way, we can "concentrate" the risk to localities where we can better observe the spread of treatable and preventable diseases. The deaths of those people in these "concentration camps" will help science advance our understanding of disease.